THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.

SENATOR CHRISTOPHER MURPHY SAYS PRESIDENT CAN DECLARE INTERNATIONAL MARTIAL LAW UNDER NEW AUMF.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced legislation (S. J. Res. 29) on Wednesday that would give President Obama sweeping authority to take action against the Islamic terrorist group ISIS. The proposal has no termination date, and no limitations on where troops could be sent or how they would be used. Additionally, the proposal would maintain the 2001 Authorization for Military Force, which has never expired, designed to let the president take military action against anyone, anywhere, if a connection is made to those allegedly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Obama spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said that the White House welcomes interest by the Republicans “in specifically authorizing the continued use of military force against ISIL.” She promised,

We will review the proposal put forward by Leader McConnell, and look forward to continued consultations as Congress undertakes what we hope will be the robust debate and amendment process the American people deserve on this important topic.

But, she added,

The president has been clear from the beginning that we will not be engaging in the type of armed conflict we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that remains the case.

President Obama has used the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, arguing that ISIS (ISIL) is an offshoot of al-Qaeda, and therefore, he may carry out attacks on various individuals and groups in the Middle East without further congressional action.

There is wide support in Congress for military action against ISIS, but because of differences of opinion as to the exact nature of that action, there has been no new authorization of force from Congress. Some, such as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). have even called for the insertion of American ground troops into Syria and Iraq: that is, “boots on the ground.”

This resolution is a total rewrite of the War Powers Clause in the U.S. Constitution. It is essentially a declaration of international martial law, a sweeping transfer of military power to the president that will allow him or her to send U.S. ground troops almost anywhere in the world, for almost any reason, with absolutely no limitations.

Murphy’s inclusion of the pronoun “her” to describe the next president illustrates one of the problems with McConnell’s proposed resolution. Murphy is expecting that any initiation of force under such a proposal would drag on into at least the tenure of the next occupant of the White House, and he is no doubt suggesting that that person could be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The 2001 AUMF that gave President George W. Bush sweeping authority to make war on the alleged perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks is still in effect today, more than 14 years later.

Before introducing his bill Wedesday, McConnell defended his position on ABC’s This Week, asserting, “Look, I don’t want to tie the hands of the next president. The next president may want to actually defeat ISIL. I think an AUMF ... that ties the president’s hands behind his back is not something I would want to do to a new president who’s going to have to clean up this mess, created by all of the passivity over the last eight years.”

Not surprisingly, among McConnell’s co-sponsors is the bellicose Senator Lindsey Graham. Others who favor giving either this president or the next almost unlimited power to make war include Republican Senators Dan Coats (R-Ind.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).

While ISIS (or ISIL) is certainly a nasty group of thugs, members of Congress should carefully consider the possible ramifications before handing either Obama or the next president such extensive war-making authority. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress swiftly passed the AUMF, giving President Bush approval to go after those who were alleged to have planned and executed the attacks.

Even former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) voted for that AUMF.

Paul cautioned at the time that the authorization to use force against the Taliban was not a declaration of war. He argued instead that the Framers of the Constitution had provided a better tool to retaliate against organizations such as al-Qaeda than an open-ended authorization of force, or a declaration of war. He pointed out that Congress had constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal, contending that would allow more clearly defined objectives than the AUMF Congress was granting the president. An authorization of force, Paul explained, provided no clarity as to scope and purpose.

The Tenth Amendment Center stated,

Several times during his tenure as a Congressman, Ron Paul suggested using letters of marque and reprisal to seize property and exact harm upon Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda officials. Offering a bill in October of 2001, Paul’s suggestion would have allowed:

Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the [United States].”

Paul argued that the letters would be cost effective, produce motivation for locals to assist in capture, and protect liberty at home while hindering foes abroad.

But, since he had no other alternative than to do nothing (which he believed was unthinkable, following the 9/11 attacks), Paul voted for the AUMF resolution.

After the military victory over the Taliban, Paul called for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, declaring that the people who had allegedly attacked the United States had been defeated, and that America should not be involved in nation-building.

The power to declare war was among the enumerated powers of Congress found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, along with, as Congressman Paul mentioned, the power to “grant letters of marque and reprisal.” Both as a constitutional and a practical manner, the practice by members of Congress of simply turning over their constitutional authority to the president is unwise — as has been borne out by history.

In 1950, after Communist forces from North Korea invaded South Korea in an act of naked aggression, President Harry Truman acted without a shred of constitutional authority to insert American ground troops into the Korean peninsula. When challenged by such congressional leaders as Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio) that only Congress had the constitutional authority to declare war, Truman replied, “We are not at war. We are involved in a police action.”

In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson sent hundreds of thousands of American ground forces into the jungles of South Vietnam, relying not on a declaration of war, but rather on an authorization of force: the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

It is not to say that American presidents did not used military force in the early years of the Republic; however, those early authorizations of force were extremely limited and targeted.

In the Quasi War with France, according to Tom Woods' book 33 Questions About American History, President John Adams took no independent action. Following the war, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could either declare war or approve hostilities by means of statutes that authorized an undeclared war. Adams complied strictly with congressional statutes, which were very specific.

President Thomas Jefferson made war on the Barbary Pirates in 1805; however, he was careful to have the clear direction of Congress, which explicitly authorized this action in 10 separate statutes. In a letter to James Madison in 1789, Jefferson had commended the work of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in giving a “check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the executive to the legislative body.”

In tense moments with the Spanish in a border dispute concerning Louisiana and Florida, Jefferson sent a message to Congress asking for direction. “Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using in any degree which could be avoided,” he stated.

Perhaps a comparison to other statutes would be enlightening. Congress makes a law, which is its constitutional role, and the president’s constitutional job is to carry out the law — not make law on his own. Just as the Framers did not give the president any authority to make law on his own, neither did they give him the authority to make war on his own. Open-ended authorizations of military force are an unwarranted and unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the president.

And they have usually been disastrous.

While the Founders disagreed on some things, they were united in believing that the decision to go to war, along with the objectives it would achieve, was a legislative, not an executive, function. Alexander Hamilton stated, “The Congress shall have the power to declare war; the plain meaning of which is, that it is the peculiar and exclusive duty of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war.”

Madison was just as blunt: “The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” He later wrote to Jefferson, “It [the Constitution] has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the legislature,” noting that it was the executive that was “most prone” to take the country to war.

President George Washington had no illusions that he could go to war on his own, stating: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

Washington believed a president was required to obtain congressional authorization before undertaking any offensive expedition. But what about defensive actions? It is clear from a reading of the minutes of the Constitutional Convention that the Framers understood that a president might have to use unilateral defensive action were the nation attacked. This is why the delegates used the language to withhold from the president the power to “declare” war, but not the power to “make” war.

Many have compared this to a ship’s captain at sea who finds his vessel under attack. Certainly, he is allowed to take all necessary actions of defense, but just as certainly, it would be highly inappropriate and beyond his authority to take offensive actions.

Following the unpopular Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973. While often used as an example of Congress rising up to restrain the war powers of the president, Tom Woods contends it actually “codified executive war-making powers that would have astonished the Framers of the Constitution.”

For example, this law permits a president to commit troops to offensive operations anywhere in the world, for any reason, all without the consent of Congress, for a period of 60 days. Despite the toothlessness of the law, it was basically ignored by President Bill Clinton during his war in Bosnia.

Woods recalled Ron Paul’s insistence that, if the country were to go to war, the Constitution required that Congress approve a declaration of war — not simply a cowardly resolution authorizing the president to use force if and when he chose, thereby abdicating their constitutional authority to the White House. Prominent Republicans bluntly informed Paul that his position was outdated, and things were not done that way anymore.

Paul responded that he could not find an expiration date on his copy of the Constitution.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes

MADISON, Wisc. — The abortion giant Planned Parenthood provided the hearts and brains of unborn babies up to 18 weeks gestation to the University of Wisconsin, records show, despite assertions from both groups that the exchange never occurred.

In a press release earlier this month in which Planned Parenthood announced its lawsuit against the Center for Medical Progress and those involved with recording undercover videos of organization officials, it claimed that “Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin does not offer fetal tissue donation for patients.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel likewise noted in October, “The group has said only a handful of its clinics, and none in Wisconsin, are involved in the donations.”

Two months earlier, the paper also outlined that the University of Wisconsin obtained its fetal organs from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at the University of New York, the University of Washington in Seattle, Advanced Bioscience Resources and the University of Southern California—but did not list Planned Parenthood.

It, however, suggested that there were concerns that Planned Parenthood had a possible working relationship with Advanced Bioscience Resources, due to undercover footage from the Center for Medical Progress in which a former Planned Parenthood official stated, “We already have a relationship with ABR. … We’ve been using them for over 10 years—a really long time.”

“Based on recent media reports of potential ties between Advanced Bioscience Resources and Planned Parenthood, we are working to determine whether the company is meeting all applicable standards. We will not use any suppliers who are out of compliance,” Marsha Mailick, vice chancellor for research and graduate education at the University of Wisconsin, told the publication in implying that the university didn’t work with Planned Parenthood, but that one of its suppliers might.

But the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) submitted a public records request over the matter, and while Planned Parenthood claimed that it does not donate fetal organs in Wisconsin, ADF found that the University of Wisconsin in Madison had been directly obtaining baby hearts and brains from Planned Parenthood itself.

The documents obtained mention Planned Parenthood over 20 times, stating that the process to obtain consent to harvest chidrens’ organs “will occur in a private room at Madison Planned Parenthood” and that “[t]he research fellow or research coordinator [at the University of Wisconsin] will have Planned Parenthood consent for the disposal of the tissue.”

“The consent process will be done at Madison Planned Parenthood on the day of the procedure,” the documents outline. “The study nurse will speak privately with the subject and explain the aims of this study. … Planned Parenthood mandates the use of a specific consent form for the disposal of products of conception which
will be used.”

“If the patient agrees to it, the fetal and placental tissue is collected through suction and deposited in a glass jar connected to the suction device, as per Planned Parenthood protocol,” they state. “The PI, co-investigator, research coordinator, and research scientists will be responsible for the handling of the tissues.”

The documents, which include a sample consent form from Planned Parenthood, also note the various kinds of organs harvested, stating that the “specimens” are placed into tubes, which “will have written on them a number linked to the gestational age and the name of the specimen (i.e. brain, liver, placenta, etc.).”

“A collection box/ladder will be set aside for these samples; one row per patient. Example: Patient #1 Brain Heart Kidney Liver Bone Muscle Placenta,” it outlines.

One document of meeting minutes from 2009 states, “While the investigators involved in obtaining consent and collecting the tissue are performing these procedures for Planned Parenthood, they are UW employees….” It adds, “A letter of support has been provided from Planned Parenthood.”

“Planned Parenthood has once again demonstrated its willingness to cover up its role in the gruesome baby parts trade,” said ADF Senior Counsel Matt Bowman in a statement. “Both Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and UW-Madison publicly denied they had any arrangement to supply baby parts from women undergoing abortion to researchers conducting gruesome experiments, but the documents we obtained prove they were not telling the truth.”

Full disclosure: I don’t like Donald Trump as a person or performer or politician although I have said that I would vote for him (very reluctantly) given the Democrat choices. Nevertheless, being an Evangelical (more precisely a Fundamentalist) I am amazed at the Christians who have drunk Trump’s brand of Kool-Aid. They need to wipe their lips and rethink their support for him.

He is bold, blunt, brash, boastful, and bombastic none of which would eliminate him but I don’t like his gambling empire which is associated with booze and prostitution. He, of course, is not a conservative since he has been all over the map. He appears to be an opportunist. He doesn’t seem to know what he believes about abortion, but he knows that it is permissible to take private property for his own use! No Conservative, no Constitutionalist, no Christian can agree with that.

He told “60 Minutes” on Sept. 27, 2015 that he is for universal health care: “I am going to take care of everybody.” He added, “the government’s gonna pay for it.” That’s you and me. As to abortion he would continue government support of Planned Parenthood but not their abortion efforts. Of course, that is insane. Last year he told “Meet the Press” that he would not rescind the Iran Nuclear Deal. He is mushy on the Israeli question and refused to agree to Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol. As to immigration, he toldNewsweeklast year that he wants amnesty: “I want to move ’em out, and we’re going to move ’em back in and let them be legal.” That is amnesty after a quick visit back home. Whatever Trump is, he is not a Conservative.

My big concern is that he seems to be without character. He obviously has an inferiority complex and has to always tell everyone that he has the most, the biggest, the richest, the nicest, the shiniest of whatever. To inflate himself, Donald boasted that his Las Vegas hotel is the “tallest, most beautiful building in town” when there are three taller buildings. He boasted that his jet is “bigger than Air Force One” when his plane is about 75 feet shorter. It seems he hasn’t had much of a relationship with truth.

For sure I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton but it was totally crass for Trump to make an issue of her potty trip during the televised debate. Concerning her trip to the potty he said, “It was disgusting…. Where did she go?” It had nothing to do with political issues or the debate. Trump simply slugged Hillary below the belt. Some say it was only politics; however it only proved Trump is a thug and a rude dude.

Donald said Ted Cruz was a “total hypocrite.” And, “He’s a nasty guy. Nobody in Congress likes him.” Well, that could be a recommendation after all, Christ said in Luke 6:26 “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!” Cruz should wear that like a merit badge given to him by Donald the Rude.

Moreover, he refuses to deal with issues but majors on insulting people. I am not a fan of Rosie O’Donnell but a wise person does not say everything he thinks even if they are true. He was out of line to say Rosie was a “nice fat little Rosie,” or to say she is “crude, rude, obnoxious and dumb.”He has characterized women as “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs” and “disgusting animals.” Rosie called him a “snake-oil salesman” but that is unfair–to snake-oil salesmen. Trump has a problem with women resulting in the moniker of Donald the Crude.

His problem with women is obvious since he has been married thrice. Trump has had big problems with his personal choices. He fathered a child out of wedlock with the woman who became his second wife with the birth taking place two months after the wedding. He was married the third time to a Slovenian model in 2005. While that history does not seem as bad as Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton’s many foolish, filthy, feral flings, it is part of his résumé and must be part of the equation. It would be pathetic but not precedent-setting to have such a man in the Oval Office.

Trump uses foul language proving he is an uncouth, unthinking, uncaring, and uneducated person. A few years ago, even the most rude, crude, and lewd men did not use vulgarity in decent company especially in the presence of women. Even non-Christians should not use vulgarity.

My critics will accuse me of living in a religious bubble and that has been generally true for most of my adult life. However, that does not mean that I have had no exposure to the real world with all its corruption. After all, I have traveled worldwide, shopped, dealt with businessmen, was a life insurance salesman, served in the Indiana House of Representatives (where I reprimanded the cursing wife of a judge in front of him and their legislative friends), and appeared on hundreds of television and radio talk shows where I was called many vulgar words that I had no idea of their meaning! So my “bubble” has not meant total seclusion.

All my close friends and associates are very kind, honorable, honest, educated, cultured, urbane, sensitive people who eschew “gosh,” “heck,” “darn,” although we do lose control at times and utter “cool” or “neat.” Gasp! Maybe we say “cool” to appear cool in the eyes of others!

I am not suggesting that people who use dirty four letter words are living in the depths of depravity, although I am saying that such words are unnecessary, uncouth, uncivil and a poor example to others, especially the young.

Whatever we say should be unambiguous and not be embarrassing or an insult to others. The Bible teaches that our yea should be yea and our nay should be nay. Vulgar (even non-vulgar) curse words are proscribed and never acceptable by civil, cultured, or Christian people.

The Apostle Paul commanded us in Colossians 3:8 “Put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communications out of your mouth.” He also said, “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” Swearing results in a coarsening of society.

Evidently Trump’s momma never washed out his mouth with soap as was commonly done years ago! That worked for thousands of us. Donald the Crude needs his mouth washed out with soap.

But it gets worse.

He referred to oral sex on “Celebrity Apprentice All-Stars” twisting a female star’s comment to appear she referred to oral sex when she did not. Recently, he used a Yiddish vulgarity to slam Hillary. And he insulted Megyn Kelly referring to her monthly period. He’s a lewd dude. So that makes him Donald the Lewd.

Speaking of Arianna Huffington he said, she is “unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man–he made a good decision.” Say what? Homosexuality isneverjustified. Was that an endorsement of same-sex “marriage”? Alas, the irrational, irrepressible, and irresponsible Trump is Donald a rude, crude, lewd dude.

When asked if he ever asked God for forgiveness for his actions he said, “I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so,” he said. “I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.” That is an asinine, arrogant, and atrocious reply. Even a shallow Christian would not make such a statement. Christ said we should pray, “Forgive us our trespasses.” Why? Because everyone sins and needs forgiveness. Even Donald Trump, probably more than anyone knows. Moreover, it could be dangerous to put a narcissist like Trump in control of U.S. military machine. A man who thinks he is always right is a very dangerous person.

When Trump is challenged for his lack of decency, decorum, or discretion, he always seems to justify it by pointing out his high polling numbers among Evangelicals. Americans can support whomever they please; however, for a Christian to vote for Trump is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

Trump the rude, crude, lewd dude has proved the old adage that money and power can’t buy class or real friends but they may buy votes; however he won’t get my vote unless the alternative is a Socialist or a future resident of a federal prison.

Boys’ new book,The God Haterswas published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy ofThe God Haters click here. An eBook edition is also available.)

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives; ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis, wrote columns for USA Today for eight years; authored 15 books and hundreds of columns and articles for Internet and print media publications; defended his beliefs on hundreds of talk shows. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations and may be used without change from title through the end tag. His web sites are www.cstnews.com andwww.Muslimfact.com and www.thegodhaters.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes

MUSCATINE, Iowa — Whether or not he was aware that it was not the same branch of Presbyterianism he claims to follow, Donald Trump obtained a lesson in “humility” during a reading at a “gay-affirming” Presbyterian USA congregation on Sunday, followed by a sermon from a woman pastor that included talk on welcoming refugees.

“We talked about humility in church today,” Trump told reporters following the service at First Presbyterian Church of Muscatine (PCUSA), which he visited prior to a campaign rally in the city, just days before the Iowa Caucus. “I don’t know if that was aimed at me. Perhaps.”

The reading was from 1 Corinthians 12, and was delivered by a female member of the congregation.

“I also want you to think about how this keeps your significance from getting blow up into self-importance. For no matter how significant you are, it is only because of what you are part of,” she stated in speaking on the passage.

“Can you imagine eye telling hand, ‘Get lost; I don’t need you?’ Or, head telling foot, ‘You’re fired; your job has been phased out?’” the woman said. Trump is known for his “You’re fired” line on “The Apprentice.”

‘‘I heard that,’’ Trump told reporters. ‘‘I wondered if that was for me. They didn’t even know I was coming, so I doubt it. But it’s an appropriate phrase. … Perhaps she had something in mind.”

“I have more humility than people think,” he asserted.

The congregation’s minister, Pamela Saturnia, also delivered a message during the service, during which she contended that “Syrian refugees and Mexican migrants” should be welcomed by the nation and not shut out.

‘‘Jesus is teaching us today that he has come for those who are outside of the church,’’ she said. “[T]hose who are the most unloved, the most discriminated against, the most forgotten in our community and in our world.’’

Trump said that he heard Saturnia’s words, but still believes that Syrians should be cared for in their own country.

“I can only tell you that I want to take care of all people but with Syrians, we just can’t do it here. But I do want to build a safe zone [in Syria],” he stated. “We should have done that a long time ago.”

In addition to listening to the messages, Trump joined in the singing of hymns as the woman next to him put her arm around him.

As previously reported, Trump has stated numerous times over the past year that he identifies as Presbyterian.

“I am a religious person. People are so shocked when they find this out—I’m Protestant. I’m Presbyterian,” he said during the Iowa Family Leadership Summit last July, stating that his pastor was the late Norman Vincent Peale, who became known for his books and speeches on “the power of positive thinking.”

Peale led Marble Collegiate Church in New York City, which is actually not Presbyterian, but according to its website is affiliated with the Reformed Church in America (RCA).

There are two groups of Presbyterians: the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) and the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA). The PCA separated from PCUSA in the 1970’s due to “opposition to the long-developing theological liberalism which denied the deity of Jesus Christ and the inerrancy and authority of Scripture.”

As previously reported, last year, the leadership of PCUSA voted to redefine marriage and allow ministers to officiate same-sex ceremonies. PCUSA congregations are also generally pro-abortion.

PCA as a denomination affirms the biblical definition of marriage and the sanctity of human life.

Hillary Clinton’s daughter Chelsea recently vacationed at an exclusive resort that charges more than the average American makes in a year for a one-night’s stay in its top villa.

TheDaily Mail first reported that Chelsea Clinton, her husband Marc Mezvinsky, and their daughter Charlotte were spotted at the Amanyara Resort on Providenciales Island in Turks and Caicos last week. Clinton, who is pregnant, appeared to be taking a break from campaigning for her mother.

Rooms at the resort–rated by some as one of the world’s most expensive–begin at $1,500 per night during the slow season. Amanyara’s most exclusive accommodations, its six-bedroom villa, cost $34,000 per night during the resort’s busy season.

One night in the top villa easily costs more than the average American makes in a year, as the latest measure of per capita income over 12 months stands at $28,555, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The six-bedroom villa offers guests direct beach access, a private swimming pool, a Pilates studio, and a personal bar, along with a “dedicated chef and housekeeper,” according to the resort’s website. The resort itself boasts four spa pavilions, a reflecting pond, and an outdoor yoga studio, in addition to other perks. Overlooking the reefs of the Northwest Point Marine National Park, the resort bills itself as a “nature lover’s paradise.”

It is unclear how much Chelsea Clinton and her family paid for their vacation at the resort or in which accommodations they stayed. While the family was photographed at the resort last Wednesday, Chelsea Clinton returned to the campaign trail in Iowa over the weekend, supporting her mother alongside former President Bill Clinton.

PAYPAL.ME-SUPPORT THIS BLOG

INFOWARS: THE FOURTH ESTATE, NOT STAR WARS

Adolf Hitler

ACTS 5:29

“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

GEORGE WASHINGTON:

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

THOMAS JEFFERSON 1800

"I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

GOD ABOVE GOVERNMENT

Bible Obedience; Civil Disobedience

DISCLAIMER

Disclaimer: We are not responsible for all views posted on this website. Authors of articles, videos and/or selected texts are solely responsible for the content of their material. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Those sharing stories or testimonies are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of www.ratherexposethem.blogspot.com and/or its author.Copyright Disclaimer: Citation of articles and authors in this report does not imply ownership. Works and images presented here fall under Fair Use Section 107 and are used for commentary on globally significant newsworthy events. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Total Pageviews

Content in full or in part may be copyrighted.. Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger.